Listen to this article
A former employee filed a federal lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision, finding that the employee could no longer perform the essential functions of her job and was not provided with a reasonable accommodation.
In 2018, Robert Goossen, a heavy equipment field mechanic for the Minnesota Department of Transportation, suffered a severe injury to his left arm, hand, and ulnar nerve while on the job. The injury required several surgeries, extensive physical therapy, and extended time away from work. In 2021, after his fourth surgery, Mr. Goossen’s doctors determined that he had made maximum medical improvement but could return to work only with certain physical limitations. These limitations included limitations on extending his arms, reaching overhead, and getting on and off equipment.
MnDOT formed a work analysis team to evaluate whether Goosen’s limitations could be reasonably accommodated. The team reviewed the essential functions of the heavy equipment field mechanic job and concluded that Goosen would not be able to perform those functions with or without a reasonable accommodation. As a result, MnDOT did not permit Goosen to return to his previous duties and considered him to have voluntarily resigned at the end of his Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave.
Goossen sued MNDT for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide him with a reasonable accommodation. He argued that the accommodation would enable him to perform the essential functions of his job. The district court granted MNDT’s motion for summary judgment, finding that even with the reasonable accommodation, Goossen would not be able to perform the essential functions of his job.
On appeal, Goossen argued that the MNDT misdefined the essential functions of the heavy equipment field mechanic position, specifically the duration of certain physical tasks. He argued that tasks such as holding an outstretched arm position for more than three hours per shift, holding arms above head for more than six hours per shift, and mounting and dismounting heavy equipment for more than seven hours per shift were not necessary to perform the essential functions of the job.
To support his position, Goossen argued that the job description for a heavy equipment field mechanic only describes the time required to perform these tasks as “frequent.” Further, Goossen argued that in pre-employment testing for the position, MNDOTO did not require applicants to reach over their heads or climb on and off equipment for the amount of time that the job analysis team determined. Moreover, Goossen argued that he was never personally required to perform these tasks as frequently or extensively as the job analysis team determined.
“The Minnesota Department of Transportation has not done any time studies,” said Kelly Janette, an attorney with the Law Offices of Kelly A. Janette, who is representing Goossen. “This is important because the supervisor who testified in the case said, ‘Well, it takes more than three hours to perform the essential functions of the job. You need to be able to hold yourself at arm’s length for more than three hours,’ and there’s no documentation to back that up. The job description doesn’t support that. If it was that important, it would be clearly stated in the job description.”
“An employee’s subjective experience is not relevant to a determination of essential functions,” Assistant Attorney General Matt Mason wrote. “Ultimately, it comes down to a dispute about the length of time the job is performed. The only basis the appellant presents is his subjective experience, which is irrelevant.”
Judge Michael Meloy wrote: “We have determined that plaintiff’s subjective experience is of little importance in analyzing the essential functions of the job. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the job analysis team defined the essential functions of a heavy equipment site mechanic ‘precisely and reasonably.’ Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s conclusion that, as a result of the constraints imposed by Goosen, he was unable to perform the essential functions of a heavy equipment site mechanic.”